IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 97-40584
________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID MICHAEL REINHARDT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas
(1:91-CR-71-1)
________________________
July 9, 1998
Before DUHÉ, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:*
The defendant, David Michael Reinhardt, appeals the sentence imposed by the district court
after his supervised release was revoked. In this case, the district court, adopting the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge, found that Reinhardt violated the terms of his supervised
release by (1) committing crimes while on release, (2) using or possessing cocaine, and (3) failing to
notify the probation office within 72 hours of any change of residence or employment. Relying on
the policy statements set forth in the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) §§ 7B1.1 -
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is
not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
7B1.4, the district court found that Reinhardt’s conduct (specifically the commission of crimes while
on release) constituted a grade A supervised release violation, which, when combined with his
criminal history category of III, results in a recommended imprisonment range of 18 to 24 months.
Given the circumstances of this case, the district court concluded that Reinhardt should be sentenced
to the maximum term of imprisonment.
On appeal, Reinhardt challenges only the district court’s conclusion that he violated the terms
of his supervised release by committing a number of crimes while in Canada. According to Reinhardt,
crimes committed in a foreign country do not constitute a violation of his supervised release, which
dictates only that he “not commit another federal, state, o r local crime.” Although he does not
challenge the other two grounds upon which the district court revoked his supervised release,
Reinhardt argues that the district court’s reliance on the Canadian crimes was prejudicial because,
without those crimes, the guideline range of imprisonment would have been only five (5) to eleven
(11) months rather than eighteen (18) to twenty-four (24) months.
As we have previously held, however, although the Guidelines provide classifications for
supervised release violations and recommended ranges o f imprisonment after revocation, see
U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1 - 7B1.5, these are merely policy statements and are not binding on the district
court. United States v. Headrick, 963 F.2d 777, 781-82 (5th Cir. 1992). Instead, in Headrick, the
court held that this court will uphold a sentence imposed after revocation “unless it is in violation of
law or is plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 779. In this case, because Reinhardt was originally convicted
of bank robbery, a class C felony, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), 3559(a), Rei nhardt could have been
sentenced to a term of imprisonment after revocation of up to two (2) years, see 18 U.S.C. §
3583(e)(3). Thus, the sentence imposed was not in violation of law. In addition, given the
2
circumstances of this case, we conclude that the sentence imposed was not plainly unreasonable.
Accordingly, we need not address whether crimes committed in a foreign country can, in and of
themselves, constitute a violation of a defendant’s supervised release.
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3
Carl E. Stewart, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
Because I believe that the court should address the question of whether a crime committed
in a foreign country can constitute a violation of the terms of a defendant’s supervised release, I
respectfully dissent.
4